"The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")

Speaking of Mt. St. Helens . . .Lahars are another example of modern sediments. Not only is this deposition ongoing as volcanoes continue to erupt over time, but it creates flat sediments: As you can see, nice flat deposition well off into the distance and a polystrate house too boot. This modern deposit is now part of the geologic column.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Due to humanities need for irrigation and other uses for water we have dried up many naturally occurring bodies of water. What do we find when we dry up these lakes? Massive flat plains produce by modern sedimentation that sit on top of the existing geologic column. Lake Umari in the Middle East is just one example of many: As you can see, the lake produced a flat plain for miles and miles, and the evaporation of the water produced a salt crust. This is what you are going to find under thousands of lakes across the world, and under our oceans right now. This is the type of sedimentation that is happening right now.

Our standard "Walther's Law" model of land/sea margins sedimentation has the land/water boundary being a beach.In the "what if' great flood model, there is massive rainfall runoff and sediment load, into a rapidly rising sea. As such, I see the into the seas sedimentation as being dominated by deltaic deposits, to some degree modified by beach formation.Now, in a steady sea level situation, the delta formation advances into the sea. What happens when a sea level rise overwhelms the delta formation? That's a good question.Moose

I see polystrate trees in the background, too!

Yet another point well made.And a fine illustration of how this argument has proceeded. Someone just asserts, without even looking, but solely because, "it must be true", that the geological column is not being added to.Hopefully, this particular portion of the argument is at an end. My apologies to folks who made just as pointed observations. I saw them too.

It would appear that Faith is holding to her usual pattern of arguing repeatedly for her opinion, and when the evidence and arguments mount up she abandons the thread (usual personal persecution claims).We can expect the same arguments on the next flood thread together with claims that she refuted all the arguments presented here.Enjoy

It's kind of too bad because there is a lot of potentially interesting stuff here. For instance, Moose's tangent on deltas and their effect on the idealized Walther's Law sequence could be really fascinating.

Those aren't conversations we could have had while Faith was here. They're conversations we can only have now that Faith is gone. Walther's Law isn't something Faith understands. She also doesn't understand that sedimentation atop the stratigraphic columns around the world continues today. She also thinks massive enough floods denude the landscape and sort sediments by material, fossil content and radiometric age. And somehow the denuding of the landscape maintains eggs with nests, tracks, burrows, etc. Faith's ridiculously arguing issues she was self-evidently wrong about made impossible discussion of issues actually rooted in reality, like what Walther's Law might do in a delta context.Worse, and I'm reluctant to be so critical but will anyway, I think Walther's Law may be something that many participating in this thread do not understand. I reached this conclusion from the many, many times Faith said that the Flood moving across the landscape would leave behind sedimentary layers just like Walther's Law says it should, and there was almost always no rebuttal to this claim.Walther's Law isn't a process that takes place as a flood moves across a landscape. Maybe the concepts of transgressing and regressing seas are confusing the issue. Maybe some people think a transgressing sea is like a flood moving across a landscape. It isn't. Transgressions and regressions are slow - very slow. For Walther's Law to be a factor the transgress into the landscape must be really, really slow, inches per year on average at most is my guess. It *has* to be very slow in order for there to be enough time to leave a significant deposit of sand or mud or limestone at a given location, because these types of the sediments are *produced* by precisely that type of environment, whether the environment be at the coast, or just offshore, or way offshore, or in mid-ocean. The juncture between land and sea must remain at pretty much the same location for a very, very long time, hundreds of years at least, just like we observe about most coastlines around the world, in order for the sedimentary deposits making up the strata we see in the geologic record to happen.So if we want to have discussions like what Walther's Law might look like in a delta, now, while Faith is gone, is the time to have them.--Percy

Well, I think that the response was actually bewilderment. The idea proposed by Faith is so outlandish that it's hard to confront. It's like suddenly finding yourself in a mental hospital.An inundation event with that much turbulence (to keep sediments suspended, including gravel) to happen that suddenly (to meet the YEC timescale) is not only unsupported by facts, it cannot even be imagined by anyone with a background in science.As to a rational discussion, I think that some observations about real systems would tell us a lot. Having the satellite images is a good place to start.

Well I had kind of figured that the last two had to occur over long time periods, because they are biological deposits. Here's the image again: One question I had was what is the origin for the siliciclastic muds. When I looked this up on wikipedia I got:

quote:

---

Siliciclastic rocks (commonly misspelled siliclastic) are clastic noncarbonate sedimentary rocks that are almost exclusively silica-bearing, either as forms of quartz or other silicate minerals. All siliciclastic rocks are formed by inorganic processes, or deposited through some mechanical process, such as stream deposits (delta deposits) that are subsequently lithified. They are sandstone based rocks accounting for about 50 - 60% of the world oil and gas exploration.The other silicate minerals that are generally present in siliciclastic sedimentary rocks are feldspar, biotite etc....

---

I was hoping to get some idea of the particle size.Note that it says "stream deposits (delta deposits)" so this imply fine particle size to be carried out to the distance range of these muds.Are these particles made by the further grinding and reduction of sands along the shore and in the streams?This would also imply long time as rocks → ground down to sands → ground down to siliciclastic muds.This also implies that there is not so much two different deposition environments, but that gravels, sands and siliciclastic muds form a continuum graded by size with distance from shore, whether along the shore (carried by shore currents?) or in a delta.Referring to Message 19 of my The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1) thread:

quote:

---

Settling Velocity and Suspension Velocity⁽¹⁾

​

quote:

---

Every material has its own suspension and settling velocity. The suspension velocity is the speed of water above which the water will pick up the material and hold it in suspension. The settling velocity is the speed below which the material will be dropped out of suspension and will settle out of the water.

​

The relative sizes of gravel, sand, silt, and clay particles are shown below:

​

​

Sand and gravel are both large and dense. In addition, they have a small surface area per unit volume since they are roughly spherical. So these types of particles have a high suspension velocity.

---

​

1. Cooke, R. (website), Settling Velocity and Suspension Velocity, Mountain Empire Community College. 2013[2013, December 2] http://water.me.vccs.edu/concepts/velocitysusp.htm

---

My understanding is that "muds" would be mostly silt sized particles -- is this correct?For silt in wikipedia I get:

quote:

---

Silt is granular material of a size between sand and clay, whose mineral origin is quartz[1] and feldspar. Silt may occur as a soil (often mixed with sand or clay) or as sediment mixed in suspension with water (also known as a suspended load) and soil in a body of water such as a river. It may also exist as soil deposited at the bottom of a water body, like mudflows from landslides. Silt has a moderate specific area with a typically non-sticky, plastic feel. Silt usually has a floury feel when dry, and a slippery feel when wet. Silt can be visually observed with a hand lens.

​

Silt is created by a variety of physical processes capable of splitting the generally sand-sized quartz crystals of primary rocks by exploiting deficiencies in their lattice.[2] These involve chemical weathering of rock[3] and regolith, and a number of physical weathering processes such as frost shattering[4] and haloclasty.[5] The main process is abrasion through transport, including fluvial comminution, aeolian attrition and glacial grinding.[6] It is in semi-arid environments[7] that substantial quantities of silt are produced. Silt is sometimes known as "rock flour" or "stone dust", especially when produced by glacial action. Mineralogically, silt is composed mainly of quartz and feldspar. Sedimentary rock composed mainly of silt is known as siltstone ...

---

Also note that dust particles are carried by winds out over the oceans and deposited at great distances ... if they are small enough. (Stoke's law in air instead of water).Overall this seems a lot like siliciclastic muds. Also seems it would take a long time to make significant amounts.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : more

About the siliciclastic muds, what you uncovered so far is already far more detailed than anything I know. I just assumed that they formed from the runoff from land, and that they occur further out from the coast than beach sand because they're smaller, lighter particles and will only fall out of suspension in quieter waters (i.e., no waves crashing through a surf onto a beach).--Percy

Were I a Theologian representing Gods Word, even if I knew that it was 100% true, I would be doing a great disservice by avoiding using that as my final argument on any given scientific matter. Faith, if you disagree with the conclusions of the science, you have to explain why. You can't simply say that you disagree. If you feel that God is giving you wisdom as He gave the Prophets, say so. If you feel that people would see the truth if they only accepted Gods Word, say so. By ignoring all but 35 of 111 replies in this thread, 33 out of 64 in your own thread in Faith & Belief, and all but 168 of 399 in the evidence for the flood thread, you are not representing Jesus Christ honestly. I'm not pointing fingers---I have my sins and human frailties too..but this needs to be addressed in a discussion forum out of respect for all members.

User:Just granpa/Earth Layers - Wikipedia Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

What is the source of your chart? The chart's title is "Mineral assemblages of common igneous rocks and their relation to the interior structure of the Earth", but it includes many non-igneous rocks, like limestone and sandstone and shale and slate. Also, I can't make sense of the chart's organization - is it actually three separate charts? And why are there notes at the bottom about the moon?--Percy

Looking at the wiki article it looks like granpa is the source of the chart. Ties in with a previous proposed topic it seems.